BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.04.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN and C.M.P(MD)Nos.94 of 2018 and 5742 of 2024

1. Ramayee

2. Lakshmi ... Appellants Vs.

Ramasamy (died)

1. Muthusamy

2. Marayee Ammal

3.Valarmathi 4. Raj Kumar

5. Karthikeyan (R3 to R5 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased

1^st respondent vide order dated 03.01.2024 made in C.M.P(MD)No.7125 of 2023 in SA(MD)No.1 of 2018 by PVMJ) ... Respondents Prayer: The Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 02.12.2015 made in A.S.No.10 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2015 made in O.S.No.316 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Karur.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.R.Rajaselvan For R2 to R5 : Mr.M.Saravanan

ORDER

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.316 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Karur have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Court, Karur in A.S.No.10 of 2015 dated 02.12.2015, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Court, Karur in O.S.No.316 of 2011 dated

06.02.2015.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:-

3.1. Originally the suit schedule property belonged to one Muthusamy gounder. The said Muthusamy gounder married one Kuttiyammal. During the wedlock two children were born namely Lakshmi and Tholappan. After the demise of Kuttiyammal, the said Muthusamy gounder married one Perumayee and through her the said Muthusamy gounder had three children namely Palaniyappan, Chinnappan and Ramasamy.

3.2. After the demise of the said Muthusamy gounder, his sons namely Tholappan, Palaniappan, Chinnappan and Ramasamy entered into a partition vide registered partition deed dated 01.09.1938. Since Chinnappan and Palaniappan were not married they executed a settlement deed in favour of the 1^st defendant namely Ramasamy. The said Tholappan had executed a sale deed with respect to 1.68 acre in S.F.No.618 of Manmangalam Village in favour of one Kalianna gounder and the said Kalianna gounder in turn sold the same to the 1^st defendant. The plaintiffs contention is that the 1^st defendant has purchased the said property from Kalianna Gounder from the joint family income and not from his own savings and the plaintiffs and the defendants jointly enjoyed suit scheduled properties and other properties. In the year 1994, vide sale deed dated 09.05.1994 they sold some of the properties. The defendants had given lawful share of profit in the suit scheduled property to the plaintiffs till December 2009 and thereafter, they refused and the plaintiffs demanded for partition and the attempt of the defendants to create encumbrance on 03.10.2011 was thwarted and the present suit was filed for partition of ¼ share to each plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit scheduled properties.

4. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:-

4.1. The first defendant filed written statement for himself and on behalf of the second appellant admitting the relationship. The first plaintiff got married in the year 1978 and she was living with her husband. Similarly, the second defendant got married in year 1981 and was living with her husband. At the time of the marriage, adequate Sridhana has been given and also one of the property was purchased in the name of the second plaintiff. The bullock cart along with bullock was also given to the first plaintiff. They admitted the settlement deed dated 22.03.1956 and denied the purchase of the property from the Kalianna Gounder on 12.06.1974 with the income of the ancestral property and he specifically stated that the said Tholappan had exe